Stanek Sunday funnies: “DNC pans God, fans abortion” edition
What will the 2012 Democratic National Convention be most remembered for? It will have to be banning God from the platform and pushing abortion from the podium.
On that note, my top five favorite cartoons this week…
by Chip Bok at GoComics.com…
by Jack Ohman at GoComics.com…
by Rick McKee at Cagle.com…
by Henry Payne at Townhall.com…
by Glenn McCoy at Townhall.com…

This was just the first signs of a platform that celebrates a mother’s rights to her children in the womb. It is only a matter of time till God is openly rejected too.
They are all so good this week. I like the first two probably the best, but the last one comes in a close second.
I liked Rick McKee’s cartoon very much, but it is too truthful – I can’t laugh at it, I can only drop my shoulders.
I am still waiting for the content of Mr. Payne’s cartoon to be reported in the news. I am sure it will be, it is just a matter of time. BTW, did anyone see Ms. Fluke during President Clinton’s speech? That was an awfully big podium!
#3 was a direct hit.
This was just the first signs of a platform that celebrates a mother’s rights to KILL her children in the womb. It is only a matter of time till God is openly rejected.
Excellent cartoons this week. Every single one was spot on!
…the Democrats went from being Pro-Choice to almost celebrating abortion
…the right has officially transformed from Compassionate Conservatives to a goal of increasing taxes on the poor and cutting services that help them so that they can give decreases to the rich.
God should strike down BOTH parties.
Ken, your 11:51 post is my favorite.
Where’s Hillary?
“BTW, did anyone see Ms. Fluke during President Clinton’s speech? That was an awfully big podium!”
Liberal journalista feminista Elenor Clift excused billy Clinton’s cavorting with ‘that woman, ms Lewinsky’, saying with a straight face, “Great leaders, have great libidos.”
“Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards used a less sexual—but still outrageous—metaphor in her DNC address: “This year women learned that if we aren’t at the table, we’re on the menu.””
[To which the salivating and still reigning philanderer in chief responded, “Thats what I’m talkin bout.”]
Washington’s Sexual Awakening
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/features/2165/
“Those to the manner born who’ve been in trouble — Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd, for instance, who participated in the famous “waitress sandwich” at La Brasserie in 1985, while their dates were in the bathroom — have tended to get out of it by claiming that their boyish high jinks [great libidos] had simply gotten out of hand.”
The ‘senator sandwich’ was NOT merely sexual harrassment, but sexual assault. There is no evidence in the record that the sexual assult escalated to ’legitimate rape’.
Evidently their great libidos were thwarted by the iminent return of their ’eye candy’.
under democrats like Bill Clinton, Chris Dodd and Ted Kennedy women are on the table, under the table, and/or on the menu as a ‘senator sandwich’.
Hal says: September 9, 2012 at 12:50 pm “Ken, your 11:51 post is my favorite.”
I will take that as a high compliment from one whom I consider to be a master of brevity.
The truth is I ‘fat fingered’ the key with my bandaged phalanges.
jtm says: September 9, 2012 at 12:51 pm “Where’s
Where’s Hillary?
Hillary bailed on the DNC. While Bill was giving his speech, Hillary was in China.
Alice -
To say Hillary “bailed” is factually incorrect – the Hatch Act of 1939 prohibits Secretary of States from being at conventions.
Hi Ken,
I recall that liberal columnist Ellen Goodman performed some real semantic gymnastics to explain how Clinton flashing Paula Jones was not sexual harassment. Her reasoning? How is a man supposed to know a woman objects to his advances unless he makes them first? So long as the man stops when he is told to, there’s not a problem. Paula Jones said no, so presto, there was no problem.
I couldn’t resist writing Ms. Goodman and asking if I should assume she would have no objection to a man putting his hand up her dress or down her blouse, so long as he stopped when she told him to? Never did get a response.
Oh sure, she acknowledges, what Billy(goat)Clinton did was lewd, but it was not illegal.
That sent a couple of police officers I knew into fits of laughter.
EGV 1:44PM
It doesn’t forbid her from being in the country. Sure seems like she wanted to be as far away as possible, but I could be wrong.
Mary -
Why the stink would she be in the country? She’s got a job to do – she should be out doing it.
If she had flown back to, let’s say Des Moines, are you telling me that wouldn’t be whining about taxpayer expense being paid so that she could be back in the country for the speech?
Don’t get yourself in such a tizzy EGV. I said I could be wrong. I just found it interesting that she along with so many other Democrats decided to sit this one out.
You may want to check out this link:
http://desertdragon90.blogspot.com/2012/09/big-fib.html
Ex-RINO,
You are a lost soul. Obamacare is the biggest tax increase to hit the poor and middle class in recent history. And all it will do is destroy/remove what was once a healthy non-profit safety net of health care for the poor and instead make the poor reliant on a panel of government bureaucrats for their care.
Here we are in 2012, four years after the anointed one promised to cut the deficit in half and lower unemployment below 7%. He was also supposed to bring us together as only he could. Not only has he failed spectacularly on all of these, but the fruits of his true agenda have exploded onto the scene in a Democrat party revealed as anti-God, anti-traditional marriage, and even more anti-unborn babies than we could have ever imagined.
Congratulations to all of the trolls and supporters here of the biggest single greatest con-man and fraudster in the history of the presidency—maybe you got more than you wanted, but nonetheless you own him.
But I must admit Ex-RINO that you do seem to seeing ‘some’ things more clearly now then in the past and this is a good sign.
Obama, in his own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nWVL7TptQ24
Lrning, you are muddying the waters with what the president says. Out out fairness everybody should wait until his position on these matters is done evolving (should be sometime soon after the 2012 elections).
Mary -
Rice skipped the party when she had the role as well. Again, she has a job to do. If she would have flown back, you would be whining and crying that she’s coming back for a party instead of doing her job. Without a doubt.
Jerry –
I think it was foolish for Obama to make those predictions. Like the Heritage foundation with Bush’s tax cuts and Scott Walkers job creation predictions – it is just too tough when you can’t control all factors.
I don’t think anybody could have predicted how bad of a recession Obama stepped into – we talk about 200K jobs being a big swing in a month. Here’s the end of 2008/beginning of 2009.
Aug – down 84K
Sep – down 159K
Oct – down 240K
Nov – down 533K
Dec – down 524K
Jan – down 598K
Feb – down 651K
Mar – down 663K
April – down 539K
May – down 345K
June – down 467K
To think the economy rebounded from that while CUTTING public sector jobs – it is really amazing.
Let the punishment fit the crime.
I believe that Slick Willie deserved more than impeachment. He should have had to submit to a televised bare bottom spanking. Hillary Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, and Kathleen Wiley should each have been handed a fraternity-style wooden paddle to punish the unprotected Presidential posterior.
Perhaps we could have winded things up with Juanita Broaddrick pulling a Lorena Bobbitt!
Bill Clinton — the great champion of womanhood! It makes me want to vomit!!!!!!!
Only you are amazed Ex-RINO. It is obvious to the rest of us that he propped up the economy by borrowing and spending trillions of dollars on the public sectors and his chosen unions. The problem is he has no ideas for a REAL recovery for the rest of us and that is what is needed.
Thanks for your thoughts truthseeker – have a good day.
EGV 3:16PM
You really shouldn’t make assumptions EGV.
You have a good day too Ex-RINO.
Hi Denise Noe 3:29PM
I don’t know how Billy(goat) Clinton has escaped “a Lorena Bobbitt” for as long as he has?! I’m sure Hillary was very tempted on more than one occasion!!
Ex-RINO If you watch it to the end it explains why your idea of supporting the economy by paying government workers is such a sham. Basically, for every dollar the Federal Reserve makes (prints or collects by selling bonds) the private banks get 10. The big banks run the Fed and for every dollar of government deficit spending the people get stolen upon for ten. Obama’s lack of any budget and wreckless deficit spending makes him the banking systems dream president. The whole time telling us he is looking out for the average Joe. If anyone; it is Ron Paul’s fiscal policy that is looking out for the average Joe over bankers and wall street. I wish the GOP would adopt Ron Paul’s Federal Reserve policy and get rid of it all together but if they don’t then we need to at least shoot for a balanced budget.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEAUaOHSrB8&feature=relmfu
Ex-GOP,
Y’know, two can play the blame game. We can just as well say the recession only deepened and the job losses climbed when it became clear that Obama would probably win, and when he had won and began “serving” us.
When you’re snake-bit, you generally don’t go for a jog. Businesses saw what was coming and were paralyzed from having any thought of expansion and hiring.
And so it has ever been thus. That is why the Romney lead and win is essential to getting the economy going again. And then you can delude yourself into thinking that Obama’s great economic policies finally kicked in!
Hans -
The thought that American companies would cut 3-4 million jobs from a psychological fear of an incoming President – that my be the most insane, unsubstantiated, uneducated thing I’ve read in a long time.
Do you have ANY idea what happened during the economic crash? Any idea at all?
And how does this theory of yours work with the Clinton job numbers?
Seriously – they let you vote to, don’t they?
Great point Hans!
Ex-GOP,
Pshaw! Anybody who knows anything about economics knows that speculation in both prediction and risk-taking is more than half the game.
The last thing Obama does is breed confidence. In us non-zombies, anyway..
Oh, I forgot to link to Obama’s campaign theme:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTbgsoHDc24
Hans – it really scares me – the short sighted nature of Americans these days and the lack of understanding of things that got us into trouble. The only way we can try to avoid history repeating itself is to understand what happened. Burying your head in the sand and coming up with weird theories isn’t going to help us move forward.
Weird theories…lollllll
Hans hit the nail on the head. If Romney/Ryan wins the election the economy is going to start busting out in November… before they even get sworn in next January. That is just the way it is. Businesses plan growth and hiring based on stability now and when they see stability in the future.
Yes, because robbing Peter to pay Paul is a great idea, will surely work, and will absolutely get us out of this hole we’re in, ya know.
Next year in France a 75% tax goes into effect for any earnings over one million euros. It is freaking thievery. Ex-RINO, would you support the same kind of thievery on successful US citizens?
http://nation.foxnews.com/bernard-arnault/2012/09/09/france-s-richest-man-applies-be-belgian?intcmp=fly
Villaraigosa Defends Vote Revising DNC Platform On Jerusalem, GOD
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-antonio-villaraigosa-god-jerusalem-20120907,0,3647028.story
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa defended his performance during a platform kerfuffle at the Democratic National Convention this week, saying that he took the actions called for by the obamateur and followed procedure when Democrats realized they had left the words “God” and “Jerusalem” out of the party platform.
[You gotta give these guys credit. It only took them two days to notice the omissions and to correct it. Deborah ‘wazzzupman’ just noticed there has been a pro-life plank in the republican platform…….and its only been there for 30 years.]
Such a change requires a two-thirds vote by delegates… Villaraigosa, the convention chairman, called for a voice vote three times before declaring the amendments approved.
Villaraigosa said that when reporters told him after the vote that they did not clearly hear two-thirds support, he responded, “That’s nice to know. I was the chairman and I did, and that was the prerogative of the chair.”
[ ˇOy vey, ay yay yay y Insha’All?h (pbuh),…… Maria! There are times in partisan politics where you have to rise above principle and do the expedient thing. ]
Villaraigosa noted that any delegate who objected to the process could have made a formal challenge within 10 minutes of the vote.
“Not one person objected… I can tell you this — the president of the United States said, ‘Wow.’ The president said, ‘You showed why you were speaker of the California Assembly,’” Villaraigosa said.
[I wonder if either Villaraigosa or the obamateur knows that Gov Jerry Brown just announced the latest discovery of the budget deficit. Instead of California having a 9.2 billion dollar shortfall, it is now 16 billion in the hole.]
“The president of the United States and the leader of my party asked me to do this, and so I’m proud I have a president who believes God and Jerusalem should be in the platform, and so do I,” Villaraigosa said.
[The United States government is 16 TRILLION dollars in debt and counting…if the obamateur had a son he would govern just like Villaraigosa.]
Ex-RINO says: June 10, 2012 at 11:08 pm “For the record, I have three kids, my wife and I would never ever have considered an abortion, and I’m against it as I equate it to murder.”
Ex-RINO says: June 11, 2012 at 7:56 am “…at the end of the day, I’m more likely than not to vote DemocrRAT…”
ExRINO says September 6, 2012 at 8:41pm “I’ve actually started to seriously think about not voting this election.”
Now, that is what I call a glimmer of hope.
We can only trust that you are just one of many millions of dis-affected voters who will vote against b o, or just won’t vote at all.
xalisae -
So Reagan and Clinton had one set of tax rates.
Bush and Obama have a different set of tax rates.
And your argument is that if we even go slightly above Bush/Obama – but less than Reagan/Clinton – that there’s no way that would work?
Is that your position?
Hal -
All I’m saying is, that there’s a school of thought out there that a housing bubble existed, and when it started to pop, it exposed trillions of dollars of unregulated credit default swaps that sent a few major global firms crashing, which then caused panic, tightening of lending and spending, and a free fall of economy.
Then there is yours, which is that in mid-2008, people started to think that Obama was going to get elected President, so businesses started to cut millions of people from payrolls based on this fear.
It might just be me – but I’m going to skip with the first option.
Which is why it makes me a little nervous to say let’s take steps BACKWARDS in financial regulations and oversight.
Ken -
I’ve far from decided what I”m going to do this election. I’ve decide I can’t, as a father of kids and as somebody who wants to see this country survive – I can’t vote for Romney. But beyond that, I’m still deciding.
Ex-RINO, do I have this right? As a father you are more comfortable leaving your children to live in a country ruled by people who reject God and would pay to have your grandchildren killed in your daughter-in-laws womb; then a country that won’t raise taxes on the rich. You are still a lot sicker than I thought.
Ex-RINO,
The housing bubble existed..due in large part to the Democrats who refused to allow Bush Jr. and the republicans to regulate Fannie and Freddie. Do you need links to Barney Frank and Dems doing just that? And the credit default swaps are still out there but now they were ‘swapped’ from wall street to the US Federal Reserve. Who do you think runs the Federal Reserve…..banks do. Namely Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan and other NY banks. It is all a shell game and Obama didn’t do squat to end the sham. So your theory of armageddon that this would be worse under Romney is misguided at best. He probably would have been more likely to let them fail instead of playing shell games with the money and at least in the end we would end up with honest (real) money being spent. We are getting raped under Obama The so-called regulations that you are touting are destructive to legitimate business and economy and only entrench cronyism and thievery that you claim to detest….the wolves are still not only in the chicken coop, they are in charge of the farm.
Ex says:
Do you have ANY idea what happened during the economic crash? Any idea at all?
If I were a betting man I would put my money on Hans.
Ex, it appears you are ready to go with the fraudster for another four years. Maybe not, but the way you defend the indefensible and then complain about others supposedly not having any idea about “what happened during the economic crash” would make you a great addition for the re-elect committee.
You see—all the Obama team has is spin and lies and class warfare/hatred of the 1% etc. They huff and puff about going back to the mistakes that got us here (if we could be so lucky to have Reaganesque policies again!) even as their pathetic policies have produced the most anemic recovery ever while bringing us within an eyelash of a total economic implosion due to 5 trillion more in debt while millions of our fellow citizens have given up looking for work and millions more underemployed and gas prices now double what they were when the great one tool office…pul-leze!
Even the great orator himself was reduced to saying in his DNC speech that he needed four more years to do that which he had promised he would do in the first four years. Oh, we are supposed to believe that he was so smart the first time around to have all the answers, but now looking back not smart enough to have known what he said at the time he didn’t really know….ever see a man become a pretzel?
Anyway, this has taken us away from the most important issue…protecting innocent human life. You say you are undecided. A vote for Obama is a vote for Sandra Fluke and Cecile Richards and sending even more billions to Planned Parenthood. If you have even the slightest pro-life sensibilities a vote for Obama is impossible.
“All I’m saying is, that there’s a school of thought out there that a housing bubble existed, and when it started to pop, it exposed trillions of dollars of unregulated credit default swaps that sent a few major global firms crashing, which then caused panic, tightening of lending and spending, and a free fall of economy.”
@EX-GOP ONLY
You’re missing a few steps, but you’re basically correct.
Having said that, a “housing bubble” was a fact, not a school of thought.
Ex-GOP, you’re a bright guy. You’re well-informed and your comments are always insightful. There are a lot of financial and economics blogs that would welcome your comments.
Both Fannie and Freddie, by the way, went under because they were buying private label mortgage backed securities from outfits like Lehman that were represented to be AAA paper, but were not. That’s a regulatory story.
Best of luck to you, Ex-GOP.
You are right Jerry. And the fact that he says that he knows Obama and the Democrats celebrate abortion and he saw them reject God in their platform at the D&C convention but he still says he is a God fearing son of a Christian pastor but still is undecided about wether or not he would vote for Obama really makes him seem like a fraud.
EG: “The rich” are carrying a LOT of poor people on their backs, tax-wise.
You do know that, don’t you?
mp -
Thanks for the validation/kind words. Sometimes I feel like i’ve entered a parallel universe on this site. I’m cool with disagreements. I don’t like when people write new facts, or ignore the facts that are out there. This isn’t about liking or disliking Obama. This is about understanding how the world works, and if truth is going to win over crazy narratives that people write.
Again though, thanks.
Again though, thanks.
@EX-GOP ONLY
You’re welcome.
rasqual -
100% understood.
All I’m saying is that right now, American expenses outweigh revenue. It hasn’t always been that way – we had surpluses in the not too distant past – but we’ve since lowered revenues, and increased costs.
We have choices. That’s what this country is about.
One choice is to cut spending – things like the military, schools, services to the poor. Some people say we can’t cut military…so that means even deeper cuts to things like food programs.
Another choice is to raise revenue. Take more money out of people’s pockets.
I back a mixture of both – raise revenues and cut spending. We clearly aren’t paying for what we owe now – and deficits need to decrease.
How would you balance the budget (or at least bring it back down where deficits are much lower)?
truthseeker saved me from needing to hammer any more nails, but here goes anyway.
Soon both Dodd and Barney Frank will be out of office. They were the prime culprits in the housing crash. So “going back to the failed polices” will only happen if Romney thinks what they did was just swell.
Of course the Left doesn’t want to look at that, and blame the Bush tax cuts instead. And all they did was fuel a five or six-year growth period after 9 / 11 and during a two-front war.
Clinton’s internet bubble burst was almost natural. The housing bubble burst could have been avoided with a more reasonable congress than Pelosi’s since, coincidentally, 2007.
Hans – just a couple of points and I’m heading to bed:
– Housing crash is only one part of it – if I’ve lent you $100, but you have proper collateral, it isn’t the end of the world if the money doesn’t get paid. If I’ve lent you $100, and then I’ve swapped out the possibly bad debt with paper trails of other bad debt, and then that debt goes bad – and I find out that we’ve got a multi-trillion house of cards – THAT is the issue. Have you ever read about the credit default swap industry? I’m not trying to win arguments anymore on this – I’m hoping people understand a bit more about what the heck happened a few years ago.
– You didn’t clarify growth in what – revenues? job numbers? deficit? All of the above?
– The housing bubble can’t be blamed on one person or one party – not if you’re being honest about it. The two parties really liked the expansion that went on. Everyone is happy when there’s a lot of wealth out there. I’m curious though – what do you think they should have done to avoid the housing bubble – or to make it less of a risk?
Hans – also, I don’t do anything but skim truth’s posts – so if there are details that you think are meaningful (and actually factual), you’ll need to repost.
Ex-GOP,
But you see, that’s the whole point of why the housing bubble burst. Financing homes for people who didn’t have the collateral, and weren’t likely to get it. Bush tried to squelch what Dodd and Frank were doing, but they got their way.
Perhaps Reagan wouldn’t have been such a “compassionate conservative” to let it go. Yes, there is some blame on both sides. But I don’t see Romney repeating it.
I believe in the Laffer Curve. It would certainly work on individuals - why bust your butt to succeed if government either rewards you for your inaction, or punishes you with higher tax rates for giving your career some effort?
Corporations - businesses – are people, and they’ll behave in just the same way.
“Ex-GOP, you’re a bright guy. You’re well-informed and your comments are always insightful. There are a lot of financial and economics blogs that would welcome your comments.”
Yeah, there are plenty of sites where you and mp can spew insane Keynesian talking points and enjoy praise from socialists and anti-God extremists.
Funny how Romney hasn’t fully fleshed out his economic policy yet, but you guys are absolutely certain that he intends to raise taxes on the poor so that the rich can keep a few more pennies. After all, who needs truth when you have “facts”?
@ mp ONLY:
Why don’t you get Ex-RINO’s email address if you wanna carry on a one-on-one with him?
@ Ex-RINO:
Say you didn’t read it and you won’t have to respond. Consummate liberal deflection when you know the the topic/content shows your thoughts to irrational and your posts to be jibberish.
@mp
You think you can post on this blog and dictate who can respond to your posts. Ex-RINO thinks he can post on this blog and ignore the posts that make his world look like a farce so that he can keep spreading his nonsensical delusions. I’m not sure what yet but it sounds like the two of you have something in common.
@Ex-RINO, Robert Gibbs, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and a whole plethora of Democrats have been using the “I didn’t read it so I can’t respond” technique recently. You are in good company. Remember how none of the Obama staffers would admit to knowing anything about the ad that accused Romney of being responsible for the death of the woman who died of cancer? But there was audio that came out of phone conversations and interviews that those same Obama staffers had done with the people involved in that same ad that they denied knowing anything about. You are really showing your skills as the consummate liberal bser.
@ExRINO, have you had a chance to talk with your Dad, the Christian pastor, about the Democratic party rejecting God from their platform? Is he still gonna vote for Obama too?
@ExRINO and mp,
Here is a short video on the timing of the housing bubble and how Bush tried to reign in GSE’s as far back as 2001:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo&feature=related
The Democrats have voted as a block to stop the GOP from regulating Fannie and Freddie by claiming over and over that there was no problem and that the assets were so riskless that their capital for holding the should be under 2%.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=CTbIb75JdwY&NR=1
Here is Barney Frank (the Democrat in charge of from March of 2010 at a housing hearing denying that a housing bubble even exists……
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIhxzNX738s
But you and mp probably won’t watch these videos because your motto is to not let the truth get in your way.
But that financial malfeasance worries me little in comparison to the Democrats rejection of God at the 2012 convention. If the Democrats are in power, that is more scary to me (at least from this Christian’s perspective), and more certain to bring our country to her demise.
Ex-RINO, You said that ‘as a father’ you could not vote for Romney. I will repeat to you the tough question that made you turn tail and run and pretend like you didn’t read my post.
As a father are more comfortable leaving your children to live in a country ruled by people who reject God and would support killing your grandchildren in your daughters womb?
Ex-RINO,
You said that ‘as a father’ you could not vote for Romney. I will repeat to you the tough response question that I made when you turned tail and ran and started pretending like you didn’t read my post.
As a father are you more comfortable leaving your children to live in a country ruled by people who reject God and would support killing your grandchildren in your daughters womb?
truthseeker – What does their rejection of God actually entail? Depending on the answer, I may be conflicted on this issue. If they are not going to behave as if they seek the will of God, on some level I appreciate God’s name not being used in vain. If they are going to be a party of baby killers, then they should not claim to be God-fearing. If they are speaking for us all however, that’s a big problem.
In any case LifeJoy I believe that should the day come when our society is governed by leaders who reject God’s plan for the the family and for mankind then these same rulers and the people that support them will destroy us from within. But I agree with your assessment that it is a much bigger problem when people claim to follow God’s will but support people acting in ways contrary to God’s will. That also explains why I am comfortable around honest atheists and do not feel threatened by them; cause they do not pretend to speak for us or use God’s name in vain.
And your argument is that if we even go slightly above Bush/Obama – but less than Reagan/Clinton – that there’s no way that would work?
Is that your position?
Yes. And here is my little hunk of real-world experience that helps me maintain this position:
I have never been hired to work for a poor person. I would enjoy “the rich” to KEEP more of THEIR money so that they can use that money to pay me to provide them with goods and services, or assist them with the goods or services they have already bought. And, hopefully, if I work really hard for them and do a good job, I might end up in a high enough tax bracket that I can kick in a little bit on taxes myself, too, instead of people like them having to carry my butt and me not being able to contribute at all and/or taking far more out than I put into the system. And, I would like to see this process repeated for many, many, many people like myself. That’s gonna take a lot of “the rich” type of people.
xalisae -
Understood. Do you think Reagan’s success then was a fluke, since his taxes were so much higher than what we have now?
truth -
I want to be clear – your “tough” questions aren’t an issue. I had answered them for many months (over a year) before.
The issue is that we can’t have mutual respect which makes this all worth it if you are going to lie to me. There are plenty of people I respect on this board and who I have good conversation with on this board. Those people I’ll continue to have conversations with.
You lied, wouldn’t own up to it and made excuses, so I’ve moved on.
Ex RINO, Seriously? You believe you answered my questions about this years D&C over a year ago. I am ready to apologize if you admit to some sort of medical condition (maybe you have been going through some kind of a nervous breakdown) that makes you irrational. And rather than truthfully answering questions you choose to artfully dodge questions that would show a side of you not even you like to see and that would destroy your credibility.
No, I just think you’re full of b.s. and don’t know wtf you’re talking about.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm
I suppose it’s about standards. If this is the target they hit supposedly with God on their team, where will they be if they disown even the slightest hint of Him that remains?!
Truthseeker says to ex:
As a father are you more comfortable leaving your children to live in a country ruled by people who reject God and would support killing your grandchildren in your daughters womb?
So true! Plus, the Obamacare legacy handed on to our children will deny them and their aging parents the options and quality of health care currently available. It is a looming disaster that will reduce the finest medical system in history to a nightmarish conglomeration of long waiting lines, early and unecessary deaths, and half hearted attempts to meet our needs.
It is said you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
you can if the horse is a sheep, and the water is a river of Kool-Aid. They’ll drink until they burst. :)
ex-GOP
I am not a government budget expert or up to date on all of the details of each party’s economic policies, however, I think I a common sense approach that each party should consider is keeping the status quo on the revenue side (with the tax rates). This would mean no tax increases (don’t let the existing tax cuts expire) or tax cuts. Both parties should focus on the spending side where there should be serious cuts to unnecessary and inefective programs. With that said, even Obama has acknowledged that lower tax rates can increase the total amount of tax revenue the government collects. It is counter-intuitive and makes Mr. Clinton’s “arthimetic theory” appear to be the quaint theory he denied it was.
Moreover, I don’t accept Mr. Clinton’s ‘arthimetic theory’ because he failed to exlpain that all budgets contain a huge number of estimates. The revenue number is always an estimate whether that final number is based on tax cuts or tax increases or the prior year’s tax rates. However, if the tax rates are high and total revenues are still trending downward it doesn’t make sense to raise tax rates. I do think Mr. Clinton understands how to get an economy running, but I also think he is also a good partisan politician so he only told the American public the part of the economic story he wanted them to hear. Half-truths are very effective politically.
By the way, why didn’t Obama produce a budget each year he was in office? Did he forget?
Well, there are others who support the Laffer Curve and think raising taxes doesn’t solve anything.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/does-raising-taxes-lead-to-more-govt-revenue-professor-shows-how-the-laffer-curve-debunks-liberal-myths/
Truth -
I didn’t mean those specific questions.
You are making it out to sound like I’m not answering you because of “tough questions”. That is not true. You know I had no issues debating you in the past.
The problem came in when you essentially called me a delusional liar. That I won’t stand for without an apology, thus, I’ve moved on and converse with people I can have respect for.
Hans, I wish the politicians of both parties would talk about the growth projections/factors that they use in coming up with their budgets and why.
But the fact that Obama did not pass so many budgets is unbelievably troubling.
Tyler -
Keeping things equal on the revenue side means we’ve got a long time of more deficits, and maybe that’s okay, but that is a different tune than most right wingers are singing right now.
Obama, the Dems, and the GOP have had their own budgets, but have not collectively passed a budget in several years. No real surprise given that they fight about everything, and compromise has unfortunately become a dirty word.
Jerry –
You are delusional.
Your fearful rant isn’t based in any sort of reality except one that you are making up along the way.
The surest way to crash the health care system is to do absolutely nothing and let it continue on it’s course.
x - you can’t take a 40 year average and say that is the law today.
2011, tax revenue was 15.4% of the GDP
2010 – 15.1%
2009 – 15.1%
Reagan – 18+%
So before you spout off that somebody doesn’t know wtf they are talking about, I’d learn to read statistics and research facts.
With all due respect.
“Obama, the Dems, and the GOP have had their own budgets, but have not collectively passed a budget in several years. No real surprise given that they fight about everything, and compromise has unfortunately become a dirty word.
Tyler, The above post by Ex-RINO is just more of his bs. The Democratic senate has not even put forth a budget since Obama was elected and the budget Obama put out was so freaking bad that whenit came up for a vote EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRATIC SENATOR VOTED AGAINST Obama’s budget. It is hardly the lack of GOP compromise that EX-RINO would make it out to be. But Ex-RINO has been delusional for some time now.
“The surest way to crash the health care system is to do absolutely nothing and let it continue on it’s course.”
Simply not true Ex-RINO. You can hasten it’s demise by destroying the non-profit safety net that already exists and by reducing the amount of money people can deduct from their taxes to help pay for their own medical care and by forcing them to get government compliant health care policies that they may not want or need and still bankrupt them with deductibles and co-pays and taxes. Obamacare was the surest way that Obama could think of to crash the health care system (much fater than doing nothing would have been) for most and force people towards single payer government control. But you know that already don’t you?
Ex-RINO says: June 10, 2012 at 11:08 pm “For the record, I have three kids, my wife and I would never ever have considered an abortion, and I’m against it as I equate it to murder.”
Ex-RINO says: June 11, 2012 at 7:56 am “…at the end of the day, I’m more likely than not to vote DemocrRAT…”
ExRINO says September 6, 2012 at 8:41pm “I’ve actually started to seriously think about not voting this election.”
Ex-GOP say sSeptember 9, 2012 at 8:27 pm “I’ve far from decided what I”m going to do this election… I can’t vote for Romney. But beyond that, I’m still deciding.”
Still stuck in the cul de sac, circling counter clockwise, in an ever leftward rotation, moving inexorably to the center of the vortex, accelerating, spinning ever faster as you are descending into the depths of that ‘black hole’.
The only consolation I can offer is: You will not be alone. [Well, it’s a consolation to me.]
What was it they used to say in Alaska while the pipeline was being constructed?
Oh yeah:
What is happines to an Alaskan?
A cajun headed south….with a Texan under one arm…. and an Okie under the other!
‘bon voyage mon ami’
don’t forget to take your dramamine or your fellow travelers.
Tyler,
Did I mention that the first two years of the four Obama years without a budget were years where the Democrats also controlled the House and the Senate. The next two years the Democrats controlled the Senate and never put forth a budget those years either. And Obama’s budgets the past two years were so fiscally incompetent that NOT EVEN ONE DEMOCRAT voted for either of them. But Ex-RINO still somehow points the blame for no budget at the GOP. Classic Trolling 101.
okay. You want to get caught up in the “big picture” to cling to your cherished delusion, more power to you. I’m sure you NEED that to feel better about your “free” stuff you want from the government, and they can’t “give” that to you if they don’t take from someone else, so you NEED this.
But the simple facts are, as was stated in that article, cuts equal prosperity. And, that’s prosperity for everybody, not just people trying to get their “free stuff”.
xalisae -
With all due respect, I asked you if you thought Reagan’s success was a fluke because his taxes were much higher (and you fear higher taxes). You not only disagreed, but you said that I “don’t know wtf you’re talking about”
When presented with information that the % of revenue in relation to the GDP was about 3% higher (in 1989, it was 18.4% – so well over 3%) – now I’m what, getting caught up in a cherished delusion?
With all due respect, you do realize 3% of the GDP of the United States of America is a lot of money. The 2011 GDP was roughly 15 trillion – so to scoff at that number a as delusion is a little silly.
We aren’t talking about “free” stuff – and I don’t know why you are even trying to head in that direction. That isn’t part of the conversation at all on this thread.
So again, Reagan/Clinton had higher tax rates than Bush/Obama. Under your theory that cuts equal prosperity, I’m wondering, are we better off in these last 12 years (of the lower tax rates) than we were under Reagan/Clinton rates? If not, what has happened to your theory?
Ex-GOP says: So again, Reagan/Clinton had higher tax rates than Bush/Obama.
According to the article xalisae linked to, Reagan cut the top income tax rate to 28%. The top income tax rate is now 35%. What exactly are you referring to when you say “tax rates”?
Lrning -
Reagan’s top income rate was 69.1% in 1981, 50% from 1982 through 1986, 38.5% in 1987, and 28% in 1988. They went back up to 31% from 1990 to 1992, then were at 39.6% until 2000.
So of Reagan’s 8 years in office, 7 of the 8 years had a higher top tax rate than today (at 35%, which you stated).
A lot of other rates and credits were much different, which again, is why we see such a difference in the percentage of revenue of the gdp from then compared to now.
I’m not saying the answer is to tax the rich as much as we can. I’m saying that we have a deficit in this country. If that deficit is important to solve, we need a mix of spending cuts and tax revenue increases. And the belief that tax revenue increases are suddenly going to shut down the nation is false. in an economy such as now, massive tax increases would be foolish. I also think the notion that we should never raise taxes is both foolish and dangerous.
That’s all I’m saying.
And I’m a bit steamed I was told that I didn’t “know what the f*&k” I was talking about when clearly, xalisae threw out some stats without understanding the greater picture.
What you fail to understand Ex-RINO is that the government has enough revenue already. They will spend whatever you give them and still run deficits. For example; Illinois created a lottery and a portion of the proceeds goes to pay for education. Guess what? Once they got the lottery revenues started rolling in they cut back on other money they used to give the schools and the education system saw no net gain. See how that works. They have enough revenue already. Giving them more tax revenue won’t help. The only possible way out is to grow the economy.
This is the greatest economic mind in the US today. I hope Romney finds him a prominent place in his administration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=8Bib7kKBhqs&NR=1
Here is that same great economic mind interviewed the following day by Steve Forbes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paszyvjHC7A&feature=relmfu
EG: “in an economy such as now, massive tax increases would be foolish”
So Chicago’s long-standing Democratic government, then, must be blithering morons. Because by that definition they owe an apology to fools.
Ex-GOP
You are being a little bit dishonest. Yes the tax rates were higher under Reagan than they currently are, but they were lower than the years under Carter. Furthermore, the total tax receitps from individuals went up under Reagan.
Total tax receipts from individuals did go up under Clinton even though he did raise the individual tax rates. But Clinton’s presidency occurred before the tech bubble, and enjoyed the growth from a new industry.
Total tax receipts from individuals did were lower under W from 2001 to 2005 than Clinton’s last year in 2000. But by 2006 they had started to rise again.
Total tax receipts from individuals under Obama who has not changed the tax rates have not yet risen to the level of 2008 the last year 43 was in office.
The data doesn’t really support your point.
Tyler – I think you are struggling with the word dishonest here. If a person makes a point about the Bible for instance, it isn’t being dishonest if they don’t give an entire history of the Bible while they do that. I’ve made plenty of points of tax rates in the 1980’s vs today. It doesn’t mean that I’ve been dishonest simply because I haven’t given a history of taxation in the country.
I look at revenue in regards to a percentage of the GDP (so we don’t have to deal with inflation issues).
That being said, the top revenue year for Bush2 was 2001, before the tax cuts. AFter that, his top year was 2007, where revenue was 18.5% of GDP.
Clinton’s first three years were under that amount – 93-95 were all in the low 18 range. After that, it was solid 19’s and a 20 (20.6 in 2000).
If I had no Presidents to look at – just had the table of historical data – I’d conclude that, in regards to tax revenue, we should try to copy the late 80’s and the 90’s. Anything after 2002, with the exception of 2006/2007 (which didn’t have a tech bubble, but had it’s own bubbles to benefit from) paled in comparison to those other years.
Again, just because I think we have to keep sight on the point of contention – I’m simply claiming that raising taxes isn’t always a terrible thing, and we’ve survived and thrived under higher tax rates than we have today.
I’d be all for adding a few higher levels of income taxed at higher rates.
But take a look at government spending as a % of GDP too. We must cut spending.
And we must stop killing the unborn.
Ex-GOP
As I said before I am no expert, but the fact the economy thrived once when the tax rates were higher is too reductionistic as a conclusion. I suspect the success of the economy had to do with a whole assortment of other reasons despite the higher tax rate. The 90’s was also the decade of global corporate expansion, the Berlin wall had been torn down, Russia was changing to a free market system. Japan was strong, etc… the entire world was a play pen for capitalists.
In any event, you should not have said xalisae was wrong. She wasn’t, at least not any more wrong than you were. I may been incorrect to use the word ’dishonest’ but you certainly weren’t ‘transparent.’ xalisae’s point was that total tax income increased when tax rates have been lowered. The eighties and mid-2000’s prove her point.
However, I would agree that if we only looked at the date not at the Presidents we would not try to emulate the last 4 years!
Reagan came in with a crappy economy. Tax rates were high. He lowered them. It was so important to him that the tax rate be lowered that lowering it dramatically was one of the first things he did after he was elected. The economy began to thrive, and continued to do so throughout his terms. That’s it.
I think EG may imagine that you can just plop what he deems ideal scenarios into any given point in time and see predictable results based on previous occasions of such scenarios divorced from the previous context. Thus, though Reagan’s years were, as X points out, thriving when taxes were lowered to that level EG sees as high, EG now imagines that raising taxes to that prior level from the current lower level would somehow have the same effect.
Call these levels A (Carter), B (Reagan) and C (now). Naive and oversimplified, but to make this point: EG seems to think that moving from C to B would be as productive as it was to move from A to B. But he hasn’t explained this irrational assumption.
Of course, that might be asking too much from someone who presumes we’ll deem him sincerely pro-life even though he works harder than most children avoiding work, to contrive excuses for not voting for for anyone other than Obama.
Ex-GOP,
I agree with you in hoping we follow most of the policies of the late 80s and early 90s. Reagan kept the tax rates low, and in ’86 his tax-raising was largely through the closing of loopholes for the rich.
Guess who wants to mimic this? Romney wants to reform loopholes and cut rates across the board. Hopefully then he’ll flatten the rates after a few years of real recovery.
How is that not better than Obama merely continuing to demagogue against the rich? Even if he got what he wanted, it would only pay down the deficit a few percentage points.
Assuming the rich don’t reflexively hold tighter to their wallets by searching for more loopholes.
Lrning -
On the taxes part – I 100% agree that the proper mix is spending cuts and revenue increases – and much more spending cuts than revenue increases. I don’t have many actual points in all of this except to say that I think those who say that tax increases shouldn’t be on the table – I think they have a view that doesn’t reconcile with reality.
Tyler -
Yes – way too simplified of an argument.
As a recap though, x drew a fairly hard line in the sand that any taxes above the current rates would be destructive (I asked about taxes in between the Reagan rates and these). So when I asked if his success was a fluke, she said “No, I just think you’re full of b.s. and don’t know wtf you’re talking about.”
Which is rude and uncalled for.
So in subsequent discussions, I think I’ve more than shown that there isn’t a magic line here that we sit right below that if crossed, is going to plunge the nation into a black hole. Of course, there are other factors – I’ve said already I wouldn’t raise taxes right now – but x’s point was that Reagan’s rates weren’t higher – at least that is what it seems her point was – and they were.
xalisae – what is interesting though is, the economy started to grow and those tax rates were still much higher than they are today. 50% on the top tier all the way through 1986, and the economy was growing?
So I’m saying, in the near future, I think we should at least discuss moving it from the 35 a bit closer to the 38-40 amount it has been – and I don’t think we’re going to plunge into the ocean if we do that.
Rasqual -
I invite you to read through the whole conversation. Dull at times, but that isn’t what I’m saying at all.
I’m simply saying that there are many people out there saying that though the deficit is a real problem, talking about tax revenue increases is a non-starter.
I don’t think that is realistic, and I also think that, judging from recent history, the economy can survive when taxes are higher. We’ve racked up a lot of debt, IN PART, because taxes have been lower than they probably should have been. At some point, that’s going to need to change, and I’m simply saying that judging by past history, higher tax rates aren’t the end of the world.
Hans – Romney has said that in closing the loopholes, he’s not going to raise taxes on the rich at all – he’d offset those savings with tax decreases – so Romney isn’t doing the same thing. When Reagan reformed loopholes, it increased revenue. Romney has promised not to do that – to not collect more.
So sorry – not the same thing.
The people who are going to end up getting screwed in this whole deal, long term, is anybody making about 200K or down. Eventually, we’ll have to raise taxes – higher the bigger hole we dig. Along with that, we’re going to be cutting services, more of them, the bigger hole we dig. Somebody making $2 million a year doesn’t care much if their medicare funding gets chopped, or if their taxes rise a few percent (they might care, but their lifestyle choices won’t alter much) as compared to a middle class family.
Ex-GOP,
I’ve been tapping my toe patiently waiting my turn. ;)
Reagan got more revenues by closing loophholes because of the boost provided by the rate cuts. Romney will be doing both in quick succession. It’s up to him to reign in spending too.
We just disagree on priorities. The Tea Party says, “Taxed enough already!” And we are. It’ immoral to continue to feed an out-of-control beast. It’s like doling out a little bit of drugs until the addict “feels better”.
Spending is the problem. Growth is the solution. And you’re not going to get that by hitting up the rich. Yes, most of the money is in the middle class. And taxing them more is even worse. We have to grow the numbers and wealth of the middle class, and then the revenue will pour in, as it has for Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush fils.
It’s not a coincidence that all cut rates and got booms in return.
Assuming the rich don’t reflexively hold tighter to their wallets by searching for more loopholes.
Or just leave the country, as they have begun to do in France. But I’m sure the other plans work just fine. *yawn*
ex-GOP, you’re reply to Hans is where you lost me.
Hans – Romney has said that in closing the loopholes, he’s not going to raise taxes on the rich at all – he’d offset those savings with tax decreases – so Romney isn’t doing the same thing. When Reagan reformed loopholes, it increased revenue. Romney has promised not to do that – to not collect more.
Where are you getting this from?
The people who are going to end up getting screwed in this whole deal, long term, is anybody making about 200K or down.
How did you come to this conclusion?
Eventually, we’ll have to raise taxes – higher the bigger hole we dig. Along with that, we’re going to be cutting services, more of them, the bigger hole we dig.
Aren’t you forgetting about the global market place.
Somebody making $2 million a year doesn’t care much if their medicare funding gets chopped, or if their taxes rise a few percent (they might care, but their lifestyle choices won’t alter much) as compared to a middle class family.
This point about the lifestyle choices of the rich being unaffected by tax increases may be true but is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because taxing the rich is not going to put any serious dent into the national debt. Everyone, including the President, acknowledges this. If we are to beleive the President, he is not advocating tax the rich to get votes, but because he thinks it is “the fair thing to do.” Yeah, right! Furthermore, you seem to think the Democrats are going to look after the middle class while Republicans won’t. This is completely false reasoning. Both parties are looking out for the middle class. Both parties have to look out for the middle class if they want to get elected and stay elected. I think you are just espousing Democratic talking points here and, to certain extent, fear mongering which is not nice.
PS. In my early comment it about the 1990’s it should’ve read Japan wasn’t strong.
Ex-RINO,
Speaking of the Hatch Act. Sebelius breaks it all the time and Obama doesn’t even suspend her, let alone fire her even though she is breaking the law. HE could do the same for Hillary. Since enforcing the Hatch Act is not done by the this DOJ your reason for Hillary not being there is not valid.
http://nation.foxnews.com/kathleen-sebelius/2012/09/13/white-house-ok-sebelius-breaking-law?intcmp=fly
Maybe you should start asking Ex-RINO about the topic this thread was started on. Otherwise his trolling skills will be shown to be effective once again. Maybe some of you could ask Ex-RINO this question on my behalf. He will probably deflect and squirm and change the topic – trolling 101. I am fairly certain he won’t face the truth and answer. So please somebody have some fun and post the italicized question below to Ex-RINO. Who knows, maybe he will stop posting to you too. Or maybe he will stop posting all together :)
You said that ‘as a father’ you could not vote for Romney. .
As a father are you more comfortable leaving your children to live in a country ruled by people who reject God and would support killing your grandchildren in your daughters womb?
Ex-GOP,
You said that ‘as a father’ you could not vote for Romney. .
As a father are you more comfortable leaving your children to live in a country ruled by people who reject God and would support killing your grandchildren in your daughters womb?
I know these comics are about politics, but it’s still kind of dreary to see the whole discussion turn into a massive argument about taxes…
Maybe I’d feel differently if I knew more about economics…? All I know about the subject is that people are such jerks they’ll abuse any restriction or freedom thrown at them. Which doesn’t help me take a reasonable stance at all. >_<;
Keen assertion Violet. So what is your opinion of the actual comics and the DNC delegates voting to reject God’s presence within their platform?
Folks, it’s not worth arguing with EG. Really. His commitment to Obama is a priori on account of a prejudice against Republicans. Nothing wrong with Obama can weigh in against his peculiar prejudice.
There are certainly valid criticisms to be made of mainstream Republican positions, but only someone who inflates the importance of their brief with such positions beyond reason can be so impervious to reason. Your arguments are pointless.
This is why I refer to EG as a false flag concern troll. It’s the only alternative to the “was bit by a Republican as a child” thing — which, while a sympathetic reading, seems improbable.
Violet Black says:
I know these comics are about politics, but it’s still kind of dreary to see the whole discussion turn into a massive argument about taxes…
So true. Because at the end of the day, a vote for Obama is a vote to continue the killing.
The Democrats have gone from a position that at least could reasonably be argued to be pro-woman (safe, legal, and rare) to one that completely casts aside women’s well-being. (“We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.” – including health and safety requirements, informed consent, parental notification – because nothing says you care about women more than letting teenage girls be coerced and letting women receive “health care” from hacks, butchers, and those unprepared to deal with emergencies.)
By climbing into bed with the largest U.S. abortion provider and demanding that tax payers should fund abortion (“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.”), the Democrats have spit in the face of half the country.
“Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way.” UNTIL it comes time to pay the bill. Then move aside, big daddy government is here with the checkbook.
Half of America is so blind and deceived, it makes my heart hurt.
Hans – I do believe there is a balance. Simply raising revenue won’t do all we need, nor simply cutting things. Obviously, we can cut taxes too much (and had zero revenue) – and obviously we could have taxes so high that people don’t have enough money to live.
I think we can boil it down to this – Simpson-Bowles plan – would you have voted for it? Why or why not?
Tyler -
Maybe I shouldn’t be too quick on Romney’s plans – the problem is, what he has said just isn’t logical – you can’t really say what he’d do or wouldn’t do conclusively because he’s doing things like saying he’d close loopholes, but not naming them – and saying he won’t reduce revenue while not making a logical path to his 20% cuts while not reducing revenue. Tax Policy Center has a breakdown on it – hoping at some point some of the media will pin him down for some details – http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm
On the rest of your post, everything I learned about fear mongering I learned from fox!
I do agree with the thought that everything can’t be made even budget wise just from tax increases. I thought I had said numerous times that it was a mix of spending cuts and tax increases.
I suppose I’ll also you the same thing I asked Hans – Simpson-Bowles – would you have voted for it? Why or why not?
Ex-GOP,
I will admit to forgetting much of Simpson-Bowles, and not reading up on it since it became a moot point. I’m leery of anything Simpson was for, as was Ryan.
But we have to start somewhere. So I would have voted for it barring an alternative. Take it up with Obama, who sent the recommendations of his own commisssion to the circular file.
Rasqual -
You continue to chase me around the board with this whole false flag thing. Again, get over it. You aren’t needed here – if people don’t want to converse with me, they won’t. There’s no reason to play big brother here – these are grown-ups. I’ve been having a nice conversation with many members here – if you think my arguments are pointless, then ignore them. It’s very odd – I find myself making the same argument with my nine year old. If you don’t like somebody, don’t play with them!
Furthermore, what you say can be reflected back at you – I’ve never heard you waiver from the right wing talking points. I don’t see you cast a critical eye back at the party you love. You are generally a talking points memo around here that just swaps in bigger words using your Microsoft Word synonyms option.
I do really mean this in the kindest sense, and now for the second time (maybe third) -you need to get over this odd obsession. I’ve explained why I’m here – I’ve explained my views. If you don’t find them interesting, do what I do to truthseeker – ignore them.
Hans – with all due respect, I’m hoping you don’t dodge this question. It isn’t as if Simpson-Bowles were written on tablets that were since smashed. Take a few minutes, read up on it, and decide if you stand for it or not.
Simpson-Bowles plan – would you have voted for it? Why or why not?
Yes, teacher. Meanwhile, I hope you’ll stick around through the election so one of us can gloat. ;)
Hans -
You might have gotten a quick response email trying to pin you for an answer – the email version of your response didn’t give a response to Simpson-Bowles – but then I see the posted version does have an answer, so I apologize (see truthseeker, that is how an apology works!)
Anyway, I do believe it is a start – and not perfect, though no bill is.
I think one of the things that bugs me the most about both parties (and the American public that is driving them towards this) is the lack of compromise on anything. They only want the perfect plan and won’t figure out a solution that doesn’t fit 100% of what they want.
We have a name for those types of people in my business – they are called fired. It doesn’t work in the real world, and it shouldn’t work there. I’d like a general rule that says if unemployment stays about a certain amount for a certain amount of time, they ALL go – everybody at the federal level!
Hans – ha, yes.
I don’t know if the election matters much anyways – neither party will have 60 in the senate, so nothing will get done. It’s all a multi-billion dollar beauty competition.
I wish they would fundraise for my church…they sure are good at it.
Ex-GOP,
All righty then. As I said, I would be for it as a start. I’m reluctant even for the 15-cent gas tax, but heck it’s gone up more than that anyway.
Our do-nothing Prez hasn’t helped.
(Had to get in one more shot. He never stops infuriating me. And now even his foreign policy feather is blowing in the wind.)
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Issues/Simpson-Bowles/
Hans -
That’s fine to throw in one more shot, though I wonder how he can be both “do nothing” and “the most liberal president ever”!?!
Yes, I’ve gotten those half-emails too. That’s why I always spring to the site and delete later.
Well, he does no good, and then mucks up what he does do. :)
EG: As I said, “It’s the only alternative to the ‘was bit by a Republican as a child’ thing — which, while a sympathetic reading, seems improbable.”
So basically, I have to settle for that probability. Or a tertium quid.
How do you explain your imperturbable commitment to Obama? I mean, really. Don’t be-dreck the conversation with superfluous reasons. Just explain why your commitment is so much a simple article of gratuitous faith in the man.
Rasqual -
First off, could I get some sort of answer in regards to this ongoing following me from thread to thread, posting these odd meltdowns of not understanding my positions and how people shouldn’t answer me. Do you possibly drink each evening, post a bit while drunk, and then sober up? You really are seeming like an abusive spouse here that keeps saying that I’m this terrible person that shouldn’t be talked to, and then you rush to ask questions whenever.
I don’t see much “imperturbable” commitment to Obama. Earlier, the belief was essentially given that it is bad to ever raise taxes – I disagreed with that. I also believe there are fair criticisms of Obama, and there are lazy criticisms of Obama. If somebody wants to say that he hasn’t worked to bridge gaps, and that our government is divided even more than ever, and want to place some of the blame on him, that’s a fair criticism.
When people essentially make the argument that Obama is a bad president because he didn’t dig out of the Bush mess fast enough (as Jerry did), I feel that it is the duty of somebody to put some factual information out there. Now, people can reasonably disagree – Hans and I do that quite often.
I hope my response was okay – I was going to throw it into Word to swap in some bigger, fancier words for you – but as a common man, I’ll beg for mercy so that you don’t strike me down with your literary sword (as I’ve figured out by now that your logic or wit won’t get me).
:-)
Ex-RINO, You say you know abortion is murder. You say the Democratic party celebrates abortion. And you say you will likely vote Democrat. Why would anybody respect you? I just like to point it out so people can see you for who you are and get sucked into giving you the time of day or wasting their time with your blather.
Ex-GOP,
You said that ‘as a father’ you could not vote for Romney. .
As a father are you more comfortable leaving your children to live in a country ruled by people who reject God and would support killing your grandchildren in your daughters womb?
<crickets>
Ex-GOP
I have not read the Simpson-Bowles plan so I can’t answer your question about it. But I do find it strange that Obama didn’t support the S-B plan.
Here is an article that does a good job of explaining where the TPC got it wrong about Romney’s plan:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/316728/obama-s-tax-hike-con-editors
Tyler – two thoughts:
– There’s a lot of speculation in regards to why Obama didn’t embrace the plan – one is that he made a campaign promise not to raise taxes on the middle class (I don’t like tax promises because I don’t think politicians should box themselves in when they don’t know the future…) – and that would have broken his promise. I don’t think it is a perfect plan – but I do think we need to move forward with cutting some spending now, raising some taxes now – so we don’t get so desperate that we have to take European type measures lately. I feel like we’re on a hill, watching the water rise – and instead of taking little steps to secure the home, the politicians say they’ll just wait until the water is right there and then act. It baffles my mind.
– The TPC did get it partially wrong- all ANYBODY can do is guess because he hasn’t laid out his plan. Here is my tax plan Tyler – I want to cut taxes for everybody, and balance the budget in two years. Trust me.
Now, that is essentially what Romney is saying – he’s saying we just need to trust him that he won’t raise taxes and won’t slash revenue, and that he has a plan, but he’s not showing anybody the plan…I think it might be easiest, or ast least most honest if we just say that he has no plan at this point – certainly not one flush enough to make ANY judgments on.
Ex-GOP
Although I think it is hyporcritical for Democrats to demand more detail, I generally agree with your thought that the American public should be given enough information so that they can hold their representatvives accountable. Americans should demand the specifics of the plans of both parties.
The reason I find it hypocritical that the Democrats want more information is because they are the party of Nancy Pelosi – the person who told the American public that they would have to pass Obamacare/Obamatax in order to find out what is in it.
The democratic plan is definitely not anymore transparent than the GOP’s plan and for the Democrats to say otherwise is misleading the American public. Barack has just as vague about the tax reform he proposes.
Ex-GOP,
From a purely dollar (rather than principled) perspective, how well the economy does in the future will affect the number of tax loopholes that will be needed to be cut by either the President or Gov. Romney.
The fact that the Democrats fail to achnowledge the significant degree to which the success (or failure) of the economy will play in its budget forecasts is appallling and revealing. The Democrats should not be focusing solely on the tax rates, they should also be concerned about the dollars that will be taxed, which is entirely dependent on how well the economy does. If the American taxpayer doesn’t have any dollars in their hands even a 100% tax rate won’t generate $1 of tax revenue for the Obama government.
Tyler – three thoughts on your last two posts:
– Obama’s plan is more transparent and known than Romney’s plan because he’s had it out there for so long, and essentially, he isn’t (that I’m aware of), making claims of closing loopholes that aren’t identified.
– With that being said, I agree with the premise of your first post when you say “Americans should demand the specifics of the plans of both parties”. I think that Americans are too quick to give a free pass to politicians that they like. We’re beyond that as a country, in my opinion – we need specifics, we need analysis, and we need to know who we’re voting for.
– On your last post, I need an explanation on this sentence – “The fact that the Democrats fail to achnowledge the significant degree to which the success (or failure) of the economy will play in its budget forecasts is appallling and revealing.” Are you saying you enjoy the outlandish and often silly projections – like the Heritage foundation saying that Ryan’s plan will give us an unemployment rate of 2.8% in 2021? Is that what you are saying?
Ex-GOP I am saying that the BO and the Democrats are being disingenuous when they focus soley on tax rates, because they know there two factors that contribute to total revenue from personal or corporate income = corporate or personal income x tax rate. If the economy is not good (ie there is no growth or little growth) the amount of income available to be taxed will be less. The tax rate is only part of the calculation in determining the amount of revenue the government receives.
Unempolyment projections do reflect how they see the economy going, but they are a lagging indicator. I am talking more about the growth rates that usually help to determine the unemployment rate. As Ryan said, if you don’t have goals it is very unlikely you are going to accomplish anything. Perhaps the goals of the Democrats are too modest.
Tyler – thanks – got it now. Just wasn’t sure what you meant.
The Dems have set goals in the past – I started this whole thread (or pretty early on in it) talking about Obama’s foolish goal of unemployment. I suppose revenue would be a tough goal for a politician to admit to because that means they are aiming to bring in more money into the government. But it needs to be done.
So I know it is a left leaning source – but a pretty smart guy – thought this was an interesting read. Now, like Presidential elections, I think metrics can be tough because we don’t have a sample size of thousands of times something has occurred. But an interesting read regardless:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/09/16/the-numbers-dont-lie-why-lowering-taxes-for-the-rich-no-longer-works-to-grow-the-economy/
Ex_GOP
No problem. This discussion has helped me work through some of these issues.
BTW, the link you provided is broken.
The economy’s recuperative powers are best left unobstructed by government. The more government tries to direct the economy the more they mess the economy up. The slower the economy, the less revenue is generated, and, ultimately, the less tax revenue generated.
Here is good article explaining how the Democratic government under Bill Clinton screwed up the economy. This is good reading for everybody.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/316725/brass-standard-thomas-sowell
Tyler – not sure if you are still getting emails on this thread…
For some reason, at times, when I’ve posted links, it puts a space at the end – let me try again:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/09/16/the-numbers-dont-lie-why-lowering-taxes-for-the-rich-no-longer-works-to-grow-the-economy
Tyler -
Good posted link.
The other think Clinton did I think helped add to the future crash was getting rid of the Glass-Steagall Act and how the lack of regulation allowed too much speculation in the banking industry.
Now, under both the article I posted, and the Glass-Steagall act, members of both parties were certainly okay with the financial boom from unregulated industry. Either party could have proposed and fought for legislation along the way – but both parties didn’t want the financial boom to come to an end.